1/28/10 - "Obama gave lawmakers no specific guidance on how to move forward"

[Clio the Leo]

How soon we forget....

After Obama speech, health bill logjam remains
updated 1:14 p.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 28, 2010

WASHINGTON - The morning after President Barack Obama urged Congress to finish the job on health care overhaul, a key moderate Democrat on Thursday likened the sweeping legislation to a patient hovering near death.

"I think it's on life support, but it still has a pulse," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If there is a way forward, some of us are really committed to finding it. It doesn't look clear how we're going to move it."

Another Senate moderate, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, had a similar assessment.

Asked if it's possible that no health care bill will emerge this year, Pryor responded: "I think it is a real possibility — I don't know that it's a probability.

"It's very possible that health care is just a stalemate and you can't solve it this year," he said.

The downbeat assessments came even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reaffirmed her resolve to revive the bill, which has been in limbo since Democrats lost their 60-seat Senate majority in a Massachusetts election last week.

Obama gave lawmakers no specific guidance on how to move forward in his State of the Union message, and some lawmakers said they would have liked to hear more details. Several warned that Obama will need to make a sustained effort to nudge the legislation to the finish line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35126009/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

[zipplewrath]

1. And look at the piece of crap we got

Mandates, cadillac taxes, no public option. At best it change this nation from having 50 million uninsured to 25 million, out of 300 million people. And the truth was there were already programs to cover half of those 50 million, they just weren't signing up.

If that's what happens with our dependence on oil, we'll get a bill that demands that we all buy new cars every 5 years, and that the auto industry come up with a car that can get 35 mpg by 2015. And they'll get a billion each to "help" them achieve that.

[Clio the Leo]

7. I've got to take my father to the bank to deposit his Medicare doughnut hole check...

.... so, unfortunately, I dont have time to debate the matter with you.

[zipplewrath]

17. I've got a neighbor

That's trying to figure out how he's going to afford the premium for insurance he won't be able to afford to use.

Maybe he can drive your father to the bank, and your father can pay his premium?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vi5]

2. Yeah, and I'd say it's highly debatable...

..how well that turned out thanks to that approach.

I think this is going to require something much more than the "It's better than nothing!" or the "It's more than we would have gotten if the republicans were in charge!!!" which is pretty much how Healthcare reform netted out.

My problem with that....with this....with all of it....is not that I hate Obama...it's not that I want him to move mountains....it's not that I'm a republican. My problem is that the approach to everything, every negotiation involves starting in the middle with concessions to the republican/big business approach and needs, and then the end result being pulled even more rightward. And that's what I'm afraid will happen with this situation as well.

[treestar]

3. Aren't they supposed to be part of the process?

they are elected representatives, not secretaries!

Why would they need specific guidance? they can come up with their own ideas. They are supposed to!

[Tansy_Gold]

4. Exactly.

Because we elected Obama solely to give nice, reassuring speeches; to look presidential; to smile and provide lots of really cool photos for the daily compilation on DU.

The last thing we elected him to do was actually lead or provide leadership or any of that silly stuff. We don't need a leader. Heck, I'm not even sure what we have a White House and an executive branch for anyway. Why don't we just do away with them altogether! Think of the money we could save every year on cabinet secretaries and staff salaries and office space, not to mention the silliness of the quadrennial election campaigns.

yeah, we don't need a president to lead or anything like that, so let's just do away with him completely. We can just have a beauty pageant every couple of years, like on American Idol or something, and we'll vote that way and pick who's gonna be our Chief Celebrity and Smile Guy.




:sarcasm:



TG

[treestar]

5. We elect the representatives to lead too!

And specifically to oppose the President if need be, not to be his/her secretary!

My god, what is wrong with people on this board?????

[Tansy_Gold]

10. No, we elect the representatives and the Senators

to REPRESENT. Some of them are gonna be elected by conservative folks and some by more liberal, but --


THE PRESIDENT IS THE LEADER. The Number One. The Big Dog. The Head of State. The Commander in Chief.

He is the one who is supposed to LEAD. That's why he's elected by the whole country together.

Would you rather have anarchy, every American "ruling" for her/himself? Isn't that what you posited in another post a few days ago? That we don't need leaders, because we lead ourselves?

You do understand the meaning of "leader," don't you?


It's not the same as king or sultan or a dictator or the High Mighty Poobah -- it's someone who says something along the lines of, "I think this is the right way to go. This is the way out of the woods, the path to freedom. Follow me and I'll lead you to the promised land." And then that someone sets out on that path and the rest of the people either follow or stay behind or go their own way. BUT THE LEADER LEADS. And if the leader wanders off into the (metaphorical) desert never to be heard from again, well, that's a failed leader. That's a Jim Jones or a Marshal Applewhite or a Charles Manson or even a Napoleon or a Hitler or, goddess help me, a George W. Bush/Dick Cheney.

It's not someone who looks at the chaos and sees that it's going nowhere and says, "Well, this is interesting. Let's think about this for a while and see what happens. MAYBE SOMETHING WILL SORT ITSELF OUT AND IT'LL ALL BE FINE."

Leaders LEAD, ffs.

And I guess that's what wrong with us who are sick and tired of pretty speeches, cool sunglasses, AND TOTAL LACK OF LEADERSHIP LEADING TO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with us. Maybe there's instead something wrong with the people who keep making excuses for the inaction. Who keep their rose-colored glasses on and just bitch that the rest of us are bitching.

Are you HAPPY with the way things are? Do you really thing the right things are being done? Is that health care thing everything or even mostly or even partly what you thought would emerge from congress with the Obama leadership and strong majorities in both houses? How's that DADT repeal going 17 months in? And how about those renditions to Bagram? And how about habeas corpus? And how about the Patriot Act. And how about tax relief for working families? Oh, yeah, and how about those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen?

This man campaigned on CHANGE. CHANGE. CHANGE. CHANGE. How many times is enough to get that through to some folks? AND VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED. Oh, we're getting more articulate speeches, there's no doubt about that. But I thought change was more in the policy area than the PR area. Was I wrong? Or is the White House really much more like American Idol than I spoofed? Is it really more about image and perception and feeling good, and fuck the rest of that silly shit like wars and oil leaks and collapsing school systems and filthy fucking rich morons like Tony Hayward and Lloyd "We're Doing God's Work" Blankfein and Fabulous Fabrice and all the other sociopathic aristos who don't give a flying fuck about anyone yet who manage somehow to have masochistically loyal defenders and apologists, about whom they give the very least fuck?

What's wrong with "the people" on this board is that some of us have our eyes open and we've taken off the rose-colored glasses and we're dealing with a reality that is going further and further and deeper and deeper into hell as we watch and then we listen to the hand-wringers and the teary-eyed apologists who beg us -- US, mind you, US -- just to give him more time, feel sorry for him, blame someone else, ad nauseam.

Look, Barack Obama knew going in that this was a fucking mess. The wars, the economy, the environment, even MMS because the first scandals came out before his administration took over. Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to run. He's no John Galt captured by the looters who demand that he save them. He asked for this. And he asked for the uncertainty of it, the unexpected catastrophes. He told us, by his candidacy, that he was prepared to lead us through thick and thin. Not that he was going to stand by and observe what follies the rest of us got ourselves into, but TO LEAD US in a direction out of them.

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPECTING HIM TO LEAD and expecting him to perform miracles, but apparently some of us here on DU don't think there's any difference at all, and yet those are the same people who are making all the apologies for him. So my question then becomes, what are they apologizing FOR? For his successes? OR FOR HIS FAILURES? Why do they feel the need to apologize, the need to make excuses? We don't generally make excuses for success!

It was one thing when people got on me back in late November of 08 and told me that my complaints and criticisms -- and mine weren't the only ones -- were unfair because Obama wasn't even in office yet. People told me to give him time, that everything would be all right, that he would be the leader his campaign promised he would be.

So now, where's that leadership? Where's the fucking change? WHERE IS THE FUCKING CHANGE?

I know there will be alerts on this post and demands that it be pulled and/or that I be tombstoned for not offering "constructive" criticism of the president. I'M ASKING THAT HE LEAD, for crying out loud. I'm asking that he stop breathing platitudes and asking us to pray for deliverance from oil spills and that he DO SOMETHING. And I've offered suggestions, yes, CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM that doesn't call for nationalizing the oil industry or becoming a dictator.

1. Put all BP revenues from Gulf operations into an escrow account.
2. Executive order moratorium on all new Gulf drilling operations indefinitely.
3. Firing Salazar and appointing independent/special prosecutor for MMS scandal.

Does it mean I'm a teabagger if I criticize Obama? i guess in some eyes here it does. Does it mean I'm a Palin supporter? I guess in some eyes here it does. Because in some eyes here ANY criticism of Obama is too much. There are people here who simply cannot bear ANY breath of criticism without lashing out in defense of their. . . . well, what can I call him but leader even if some of them think he's not and we don't need one anyway?

When Obama admitted that, ultimately, he's responsible for the spill, then he took responsibility for repairing the damage, and that means not only the damage the spill has done to the environment, the economy, the lives of all involved, but also responsibility for CHANGING THE CULTURE THAT ALLOWED IT.

Some have spoken of a new Manhattan Project to find alternatives to dependence on fossil fuels. Why not a new Apollo mission? Why compare it to a weapon?

But even such a project requires LEADERSHIP. And so far, we ain't gettin' that. We ain't gettin' it from the House or the Senate, that's for sure, but we ain't gettin' it from the White House and ultimately, that's where the fucking buck stops.

Lead, follow, or get outta the fuckin' way, Barack.




Tansy Gold

[treestar]

13. Well I'm not going to read all that

But our system is one of limited powers, and even the POTUS is not supposed to be able to get everything he wants, that's why there are two conflicting branches.

The SCOTUS can even scuttle what a majority wants if it goes against the Constitution.

The POTUS is only supposed to lead the executive branch, and only for what it is empowered to do.

The representatives are not secretaries or assistants to the POTUS. They are a separate power, supposed even to be able to oppose him and stop him from doing things if that's what they want, as a majority.

I may not know what a leader is, but I do know that our system is far better than the ones many here would have if they could.

[Tansy_Gold]

14. Well, of course, if you're not going to read "all that" then I guess

I just wasted my time, didn't I?

No, of course I didn't waste my time, because I wrote it not for you -- your mind is CLEARLY already made up and OBVIOUSLY destined to stay that way -- but for the lurkers and other DUers who just might want to be informed. After all THAT'S WHAT DU IS FOR.


But I never ever ever suggested the problem was with "our system." Indeed, I DEFENDED "our system" but merely suggested it needed a fucking leader.

And at the risk of being deleted or even tombstoned, may I agree with you -- you DO NOT know what a leader is. I don't think you'd know one if it bit you on the butt.




Tansy Gold

[guruoo]

16. Indeed, our government has not one, but three branches.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Oh Lord! The number of times I've berated this exact point.

He had a specific plan for health care reform that he campaigned and WON on. It was discussed in detail in numerous Town Halls and debates. He got elected and then it was like "plan, what plan?" He sent no legislation down to the House and Senate (which is a practice that has been done OFTEN in the past and which they did just do for finanace reform for all those people who persists on saying "who ever heard of such a thing?"). Then they wasted time and effort with stupid House Parties which also had no guidance and no plan except lets-all-get-together-and-kvetch-about-healthcare, then they had their White House Pharma meetings where they gave away the farm,then they let the other team get control of the loose ball and hold Town Halls where they could vent their insanity against Socialism and a bill that didn't exist, then they let the House bumble along for awhile (which the House did pretty well in actually crafting a bill that had real reform in it) then they let the Senate and their hatchet people(Baucus and Schumer) undermine all the good stuff in the House Bill, then they negotiated pointlessly with people who didn't give a shit and who just wanted to erode the bill and make it a failure even if it passed, then they passed the miserable shell of a shell of "reform" with its mandates for for-profit healthcare with no costs controls.

So, no, that wasn't a good process and the outcome reflects that.

[joe black]

8. Now that's a great post.

Next up on the chopping block...SS. What are the cheerleaders going to say when that goes down the tube. Brave new world, I don't get it, I'm too old, I don't understand, WTF and some people call themselves Democrats.

[ProSense]

9. "He had a specific plan for health care reform....sent no legislation down to the House and Senate"

His plan wasn't legislation, it was a proposal, and he did submit it to Congress.

Anything the President sends to Congress is reshaped. Everything is debated and voted on in the legislative branch.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. For people who want to relive the process nightmare of HCR, read THIS

This is a walk down Memory Lane. For the short memory people let this be a refresher.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64819

Sick and WrongHow Washington is screwing up health care reform — and why it may take a revolt to fix it

By Matt Taibbi
Apr 05, 2010 4:04 PM EDT

skip

STEP FOUR: PROVIDE NO LEADERSHIP

One of the reasons for this chaos was the bizarre decision by the administration to provide absolutely no real oversight of the reform effort. From the start, Obama acted like a man still running for president, not someone already sitting in the White House, armed with 60 seats in the Senate. He spoke in generalities, offering as "guiding principles" the kind of I'm-for-puppies-and-sunshine platitudes we got used to on the campaign trail — investment in prevention and wellness, affordable health care for all, guaranteed choice of doctor. At no time has he come out and said what he wants Congress to do, in concrete terms. Even in June, when congressional leaders desperate for guidance met with chief of staff (and former legislative change-squelcher) Rahm Emanuel, they got no signal at all about what the White House wanted. On the question of a public option, Emanuel was agonizingly noncommittal, reportedly telling Senate Democrats that the president was still "open to alternatives."

On the same day Emanuel was passing the buck to senators, Obama was telling reporters that it's "still too early" to have a "strong opinion" on a public option. This was startling news indeed: Eight months after being elected president of the United States is too early to have an opinion on an issue that Obama himself made a central plank of his campaign? The president conceded only that a "public option makes sense."

This White House makes a serial vacillator like Bill Clinton look like Patton crossing the Rhine. Veterans from the Clinton White House, in fact, jumped on Obama. "The president may have overlearned the lesson of the Clinton health care plan fiasco, which was: Don't deliver a package to the Hill, let the Hill take ownership," said Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under Clinton. There were now so many competing ideas about how to pay for the plan and what kind of mandates to include that even after the five bills are completed, Congress will not be much closer to reform than it was at the beginning. "The president has got to go in there and give it coherence," Reich concluded.

But Reich's comment assumes that Obama wants to give the bill coherence. In many ways, the lily-livered method that Obama chose to push health care into being is a crystal-clear example of how the Democratic Party likes to act — showering a real problem with a blizzard of ineffectual decisions and verbose nonsense, then stepping aside at the last minute to reveal the true plan that all along was being forged off-camera in the furnace of moneyed interests and insider inertia. While the White House publicly eschewed any concrete "guiding principles," the People Who Mattered, it appeared, had already long ago settled on theirs. Those principles seem to have been: no single-payer system, no meaningful public option, no meaningful employer mandates and a very meaningful mandate for individual consumers. In other words, the only major reform with teeth would be the one forcing everyone to buy some form of private insurance, no matter how crappy, or suffer a tax penalty. If the public option is the sine qua non for progressives, then the "individual mandate" is the counterpart must-have requirement for the insurance industry.

This was all extensively debated here on DU at the time. President Obama didn't do 1/100th of what he could have done had he seriously been personally invested in real reform.

[Beacool]

15. And that turned out just fantastic.

As much as she's not my favorite person in the world, it took Pelosi's will of steel to garner the troops and get it done. Even then, we ended up with a watered down, eviscerated and compromised to death reform bill that pleases few.

:eyes: